KC of the WMC

[chrisje110]

I got a question Dietrich, how can u be sure this is not a good microcast ?

[Dietrich Maerz]

Because of the attached photo. But also because of other features, one being that the loop is also correct (if you know where to look).
And because of some common sense meaning that a high-level faker is going after EL and ELmS with mirco-casting and not after a RK of the KVK.

There is this misconception that fakers try to achieve an extremely high level of reproduction quality. That is not true, because they don't want nor need to fool the collectors which are really deep in the matter but rather the collector who is not studying and buys first and asks later. 70% good reproduction paired with a low price always catches the guy. That is where the money is. Not in micro-casting a RK to the KVK in real silver. If you study, you don't suspect fakes in everything, you detect the fakes. That is the difference.

[Chet Sowersby]

Other than having suffered a good deal of abuse what is it that makes this cross a reproduction to the doubters?

Chet

[chrisje110]

Thanks for the explanation Dietrich, learning everyday !

[88 Luftballons]

Theres no need for you to become personal, just calm a little.

The facts are: You promised to proof the authenticity of the cross (after you enjoyed a Wagner opera) but your arguments consist merely of facts given by the seller himself (who of course would like to sell the cross) and your private opinion. That imo resembles no proof of anything. It is just your opinion.

As widely accepted proof and/or facts, given to us by an author, not by a "normal" forum user, I would expect at least some historical research including profounding documents, a comparison with some vet acquired genuine crosses or a comparable scientific research, at least more than only an opinion.

Otherwise I can not determine any "facts" here imo, sad to say.

[Dietrich Maerz]

I looked up where you made the majority of your post and I see that out of your 41 posts only three are here in Crosses in this thread and the balance is in the areas of head gear and uniforms. That explains your lack of knowledge in the area of orders and medals and the methodology of determination of originality. Makes sense now and I am sure you are a crack expert in cloth!

I would expect at least some historical research including profounding documents, a comparison with some vet acquired genuine crosses or a comparable scientific research, at least more than only an opinion.

You really have a problem with the English laguage so I need to start all over with you, but I always like to help!!

- It is known from historical research, that the grade of the Knights Cross of the War Merit Cross with and without Swords was founded on 19 August 1940. The documents exist and should be able to find them on the Internetz. I hope that is a "profounding" document!
- to further your request for historical research I like to point your attention to the Uniformen-Markt, issue June 1942 and also to Dr. Doehle's book. In both contemporary documents the actual visual presentation of the cross can be found. Now we also have established how the cross looks.
- it is on the record that a total of 57 crosses without Swords were awarded and one can find photos of the awardees. That should be sufficient historical evidence of the actual physical presence of such crosses in the time between 1940 and May 1945.

I hope that will satisfy your urge for historical documentation. There is more available, but I don't want to bore you.

- now a vet aquired cross is a problem and here you just have to trust me. I have personally scanned a lot of Knights Crosses of the War Merit cross and also examined most of them at my home. They are all the same (most cased and from Klessheim, unissued). So they either are all real or all fake. I go for real and so would all normal collectors.
- I used those crosses to compare to the cross in question. It could be that you can't see the photo for whatever reason (Internetz in Berlin weak?). Why else would you ask me for a comparison when I already provided one?
- I showed the SEM (Scanning Electron Microscope, in case you don't know), confirming the silver.
- I showed the surface photo taken with the Electron Microscope showing that it is not cast.

Now you constantly repeat that I post "opinions" and would repeat what the seller said. I certainly do understand what you are trying to achieve here (why else the constant mentioning of "author" in a semi-degrading way) but you need to be better equipped than you are right now.

Otherwise I can not determine any "facts" here imo, sad to say.

Don't be sad! If you give it a try and read what I posted and look at the (requested) comparison you might be able to see it. If not (which will be most likely the case because of other reasons) that is good, too. At least I gave it a try and that is all I can do. But if you can follow the factual arguments then you can go and tell your friends that you learned something today and it was a good day!

[kefru177]

Personally I believe the cross to be genuine however an Expertise by Detlev Niemann from June 2009 states the cross to be a reproduction. The seller is completely honest about this. He states:

"Expertise by Detlev Niemann from June 2009, in which the manufacturer's mark is erroneously reproduced as "21", and in which Niemann states that the piece is a modern collector's production"

At 3,500€ the cross is reasonable as an undamaged version at Weitze is 7,000€. The scars add character.

However since it has the Niemann mark against it many collectors will always see it as a copy without having any real reason why. If I had 3,500€ available I might buy it as I have always wanted one of these (although with swords!)

Images of the weitze cross below:





If it is a copy why have we only seen one? The cast is damn near perfect ?

[Dietrich Maerz]

The expertise also states that the cross is stamped "21" which it is not. It is stamped "1". So what else is wrong with this expertise?

[kefru177]

The expertise also states that the cross is stamped "21" which it is not. It is stamped "1". So what else is wrong with this expertise?

I completely agree, for me its genuine and reasonable given what undamaged crosses sell for.

The expertise is the only evidence that people point to that this cross is fake

[Gary B]

One can always throw the expertise away.....

A piece should, and has to, stand on its own, good or bad.

Gary B

[Jody]

RK des KvK

Hello,
I have carefully examined the photos of the cross and compared it to my own cross (which is 100% good) and I also agree it is a good cross.

Here is a link to how I obtained my cross (from a thread I posted in 2003): http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/FORU...ross+War+Merit

Here are photos of my cross for comparison.

Regards,
Jody

[Chet Sowersby]

So, those who think the cross is a reproduction only have a eurenous expertise by Niemann to base their claim of it being fake? No one, including Mr. Ballons, has shown anything else to the contrary. Someone needs to step up to the plate and explain why the cross is bad.

By the way Jody, that is a stunning example.

Chet

[Dietrich Maerz]

It has nothing to do with the Niemann expertise, it is because I said I can factually proof that it is good. That is the only reason it has to be bad now!

[der-hase-fee]

The pebbling of the cross provides the perfect fingerprints.

Maybe the concern wasn't clearly articulated: Wouldn't the cross in question have identical pebbling if it was a cast copy of an original ? I am very concerned about the wreath, which lacks much detail.

In contrast, I find the material analysis more puzzling.

[der-hase-fee]

Now, there could be, of course, another possibility! The devious faker used an original cross, created a perfect die, and cast a fake in silver.

Working through the posts one by one, sorry. Again, the last part concerning the material is puzzling.